Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because “the turbines” in line 5 should be --the turbine--.
Claim 8 is objected to because “a temperature, a pressure,” in line 5 should be --a temperature of the resident cooling fluid, a pressure of the resident cooling fluid,--.
Claim 16 is objected to because “the system” in line 2 should be --the thermal system--.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the fluid storage tank” in line 5 should be --the fluid storage tank;--;
“arranging a turbine arranged fluidly downstream” in line 8 should be --arranging a turbine fluidly downstream-- (delete “arranged”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pressure control device” in claim s 5 and 15 -- Para 60 of US 20225/0188853 (PGPUB of instant application) - “…a pressure control valve 230…”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cummings et al. (U.S. 3,080,716).
Re claim 1:
Cummings discloses a thermal system (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a fluid storage tank (28, fuel tank - Col. 3, Line 45) configured to store a cooling fluid (Col. 3, Line 45 - “…a fuel tank 28 containing fuel…”) in a liquid state and a gas state (see Fig. 2, Col. 3, Line 45- 59);
a first heat exchanger (30, standpipe - Col. 3, Line 47 (a type of heat exchanger as shown and per description at Col. 3, Line 75 - Col. 4, Line 40)) configured to release heat into the fluid storage tank (28)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 47 - Col. 4, Line 40 (especially Col. 4, Line 14-16));
a second heat exchanger (38, fuel-oil heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 66), the second heat exchanger (38) being fluidly downstream of the fluid storage tank (28)(see Fig. 2), the second heat exchanger (38) being configured to exchange heat between the cooling fluid (Col. 3, Line 66-68) and a heat load (Col. 3, Line 68 - “…hot oil from the engine…”)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 66-74);
a turbine (10, jet engine - Col. 2, Line 73 (a turbojet per Title and Col. 4, Line 43; a turbojet engine inherently includes a turbine)) arranged fluidly downstream of the second heat exchanger (see Fig. 2 at “FUEL TO ENGINE” and Col. 3, Lines 72-74), the turbine configured to extract mechanical energy from the cooling fluid flowing therein (see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Lines 72-74 and Col. 4, Lines 32-40 (a turbojet engine inherently extracts mechanical energy from fuel)); and
a combustor (Col. 3, Lines 55-56 - “…combustion chambers of the engine 10…”) arranged fluidly upstream of the turbine (at 10) and fluidly downstream of the second heat exchanger (38)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Lines 69-74 and Col. 4, Lines 32-40 (combustion chamber of a turbojet engine are inherently upstream of the turbine of the turbojet engine)),
wherein the cooling fluid (Col. 3, Line 73 - “…heated fuel…”) that has been heated by the second heat exchanger (38) passes through the first heat exchanger (30) and thereby heats upstream cooling fluid resident in the fluid storage tank (28)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 47 - Col. 4, Line 40 (especially Col. 4, Line 14-16)), and
wherein the combustor is configured to ignite the cooling fluid flowing from the second heat exchanger (38)(see Fig. 2, Col. 3, Lines 72-74, Col. 4, Lines 32-40 (also see Col. 4, Lines 41-48 - “…for use in turbojet engines…as used in jet engines…” and Col. 3, Lines 55-56 - “…combustion gases…” (combustion chamber of a turbojet engine is inherently conjured to ignite the fuel))) such that combusted cooling fluid flows through and drives the turbine (see Fig. 2, Col. 3, Line 45 - Col. 4, Line 48 (especially Col. 3, Lines 54-56, Col. 3, Lines 66-74, Col. 4, Lines 32-48; a turbojet engine inherently combusts fuel to drive a turbine)).
Re claim 17:
Cummings discloses a method (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
storing a cooling fluid (Col. 3, Line 45 - “…a fuel tank 28 containing fuel…”) in a fluid storage tank (28, fuel tank - Col. 3, Line 45) in a liquid state and a gas state (see Fig. 2, Col. 3, Line 45- 59);
providing a first heat exchanger (30, standpipe - Col. 3, Line 47 (a type of heat exchanger as shown and per description at Col. 3, Line 75 - Col. 4, Line 40)) configured to release heat into the fluid storage tank (28)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 47 - Col. 4, Line 40 (especially Col. 4, Line 14-16));
arranging a second heat exchanger (38, fuel-oil heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 66) fluidly downstream of the fluid storage tank (28)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 47 - Col. 4, Line 40 (especially Col. 4, Line 14-16));
receiving the cooling fluid in the second heat exchanger (38)(Col. 3, Line 66-68) to exchange heat between the cooling fluid and a heat load (Col. 3, Line 68 - “…hot oil from the engine…”)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 66-74);
arranging a turbine (10, jet engine - Col. 2, Line 73 (a turbojet per Title and Col. 4, Line 43; a turbojet engine inherently includes a turbine)) arranged fluidly downstream of the second heat exchanger (38)(see Fig. 2 at “FUEL TO ENGINE” and Col. 3, Lines 72-74), the turbine configured to extract mechanical energy from the cooling fluid flowing therein (see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Lines 72-74 and Col. 4, Lines 32-40 (a turbojet engine inherently extracts mechanical energy from fuel));
arranging a combustor (Col. 3, Lines 55-56 - “…combustion chambers of the engine 10…”) fluidly upstream of the turbine (at 10) and fluidly downstream of the second heat exchanger (38)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Lines 69-74 and Col. 4, Lines 32-40 (combustion chamber of a turbojet engine are inherently upstream of the turbine of the turbojet engine));
passing the cooling fluid that has been heated by the second heat exchanger (38) through the first heat exchanger (30) and thereby heating upstream cooling fluid resident in the fluid storage tank (28)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 47 - Col. 4, Line 40 (especially Col. 4, Line 14-16)); and
igniting the cooling fluid flowing from the second heat exchanger (38) and to the turbine (at 10) in the combustor such that combusted cooling fluid flows through and drives the turbine (see Fig. 2, Col. 3, Line 45 - Col. 4, Line 48 (especially Col. 3, Lines 54-56, Col. 3, Lines 66-74, Col. 4, Lines 32-48; a turbojet engine inherently combusts fuel to drive a turbine)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. (U.S. 3,080,716), as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, in view of Wilmot, Jr. et al. (U.S. 6,415,595).
Re claim 2:
Cummings discloses the thermal system (Figs. 1-2) of claim 1 (as described above), further comprising:
a
Cummings fails to disclose a three-way valve.
Wilmot teaches a three-way valve (86, three way valve - Col. 4, Line 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the valve of Cummings after that of Wilmot, thereby making the valve of Cummings a three way valve in the way taught by Wilmot, for the advantage of being able to divide the flow into two streams which can then be directed in a controlled fashion to different destinations (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Lines 49-55) and for the advantage of being able to control ultimate temperature of fuel applied to engine (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 36-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3:
Cummings/Wilmot teaches the thermal system (Cummings; Figs. 1-2) of claim 2 (as described above).
Cummings further discloses wherein the
Cummings fails to disclose a three-way valve comprising a second exit, which leads toward the turbines such that a second portion of the cooling fluid is directed toward the turbine via the second exit.
Wilmot teaches a thermal system (Fig. 1) comprising a three-way valve (86, three way valve - Col. 4, Line 50), the three-way valve comprising a second exit (see Fig. 1 at elements 86 and 90), which leads toward the turbines (24, turbine - Col. 3, Lines 32-33) such that a second portion of a cooling fluid (Fig. 1 at 28) is directed toward the turbine (24) via the second exit (at elements 86 and 90)(see Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 27-33, Col. 4, Line 66 - Col. 5, Line 2, and Col. 5, Lines 36-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the thermal system of Cummings after that of Wilmot, thereby making the valve of Cummings a three way valve with a second exit leading to the turbine of Cummings such that a second portion of the cooling fluid of Cummings is directed toward the turbine of Cummings via the second exit, all in the way taught by Wilmot, for the advantage of being able to divide the flow into two streams which can then be directed in a controlled fashion to different destinations (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Lines 49-55) and for the advantage of being able to control ultimate temperature of fuel applied to engine (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 36-40).
Re claim 4:
Cummings/Wilmot teaches the thermal system (Cummings; Figs. 1-2) of claim 3 (as described above).
Cummings fails to disclose a first fluid line extending from the second exit of the three-way valve to the turbine, wherein the combustor is arranged along the first fluid line such that the second portion of the cooling fluid flowing from the second exit is ignited by the combustor and flows through and drives the turbine.
Wilmot teaches a thermal system (Fig. 1) comprising a three-way valve (86, three way valve - Col. 4, Line 50), the three-way valve comprising a second exit (see Fig. 1 at elements 86 and 90), which leads toward the turbines (24, turbine - Col. 3, Lines 32-33) such that a second portion of a cooling fluid (Fig. 1 at 28) is directed toward the turbine (24) via the second exit (at elements 86 and 90)(see Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 27-33, Col. 4, Line 66 - Col. 5, Line 2, and Col. 5, Lines 36-40), the thermal system further comprising a first fluid (28, line - Col. 3, Line 31; 90, line - Col. 4, Line 52 (see Col. 4, Lines 66-67)) line extending from the second exit (at elements 86 and 90) of the three-way valve (86) to the turbine (24)(see Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 27-33, Col. 4, Line 66 - Col. 5, Line 2, and Col. 5, Lines 36-40), wherein a combustor (26, combustor - Col. 3, Line 30) is arranged along the first fluid line (90,28) such that the second portion of the cooling fluid flowing from the second exit (at elements 86 and 90) is ignited by the combustor (26) and flows through and drives the turbine (24)( see Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 27-33, Col. 4, Line 66 - Col. 5, Line 2, and Col. 5, Lines 36-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the thermal system of Cummings after that of Wilmot, thereby making the valve of Cummings a three way valve with a second exit leading to the turbine of Cummings such that a second portion of the cooling fluid of Cummings is directed toward the turbine of Cummings via the second exit, and including a first fluid line extending from the second exit of the three-way valve to the turbine of Cummings, wherein the combustor of Cummings is arranged along the first fluid line such that the second portion of the cooling fluid flowing from the second exit is ignited by the combustor of Cummings and flows through and drives the turbine of Cummings, all in the way taught by Wilmot, for the advantage of being able to divide the flow into two streams which can then be directed in a controlled fashion to different destinations (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Lines 49-55) and for the advantage of being able to control ultimate temperature of fuel applied to engine (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 36-40).
Re claim 18:
Cummings discloses the method (Figs. 1-2) of claim 17 (as described above), further comprising arranging a tupstream of the first heat exchanger (30) and fluidly downstream of the second heat exchanger (38)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 75 - Col. 4, Line 8), the
Cummings fails to disclose a three-way valve.
Wilmot teaches a three-way valve (86, three way valve - Col. 4, Line 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the valve of Cummings after that of Wilmot, thereby making the valve of Cummings a three way valve in the way taught by Wilmot, for the advantage of being able to divide the flow into two streams which can then be directed in a controlled fashion to different destinations (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Lines 49-55) and for the advantage of being able to control ultimate temperature of fuel applied to engine (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 36-40)
Re claim 19:
Cummings/Wilmot teaches the method (Cummings; Figs. 1-2) of claim 18 (as described above).
Cummings further discloses the method (Figs. 1-2) comprising receiving the cooling fluid from the second heat exchanger (38) at an entrance (Modified Fig. 2 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of entrance)) of the exit (Modified Fig. 2 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of first exit)) of the
Cummings fails to disclose a three-way valve, nor directing a second portion of the cooling fluid toward the turbine via a second exit of the three-way valve.
Wilmot teaches a method (Fig. 1) comprising a three-way valve (86, three way valve - Col. 4, Line 50), and directing a second portion of a cooling fluid (Fig. 1 at 28) toward a turbine (24, turbine - Col. 3, Lines 32-33) via a second exit (see Fig. 1 at elements 86 and 90) of the three-way valve (86)(see Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 27-33, Col. 4, Line 66 - Col. 5, Line 2, and Col. 5, Lines 36-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the method of Cummings after that of Wilmot, thereby making the valve of Cummings a three way valve with a second exit leading to the turbine of Cummings such that a second portion of the cooling fluid of Cummings is directed toward the turbine of Cummings via the second exit, all in the way taught by Wilmot, for the advantage of being able to divide the flow into two streams which can then be directed in a controlled fashion to different destinations (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Lines 49-55) and for the advantage of being able to control ultimate temperature of fuel applied to engine (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 36-40).
Re claim 20:
Cummings/Wilmot teaches the method (Cummings; Figs. 1-2) of claim 19 (as described above).
Cummings fails to disclose providing a first fluid line that extends from the second exit of the three-way valve to the turbine; and arranging the combustor along the first fluid line such that the second portion of the cooling fluid flowing from the second exit is ignited by the combustor and flows through and drives the turbine.
Wilmot teaches a method (Fig. 1) comprising a three-way valve (86, three way valve - Col. 4, Line 50), and directing a second portion of a cooling fluid (Fig. 1 at 28) toward a turbine (24, turbine - Col. 3, Lines 32-33) via a second exit (see Fig. 1 at elements 86 and 90) of the three-way valve (86)(see Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 27-33, Col. 4, Line 66 - Col. 5, Line 2, and Col. 5, Lines 36-40), the method comprising providing a first fluid line (28, line - Col. 3, Line 31; 90, line - Col. 4, Line 52 (see Col. 4, Lines 66-67)) that extends from the second exit (at elements 86 and 90) of the three-way valve (86) to the turbine (24)(see Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 27-33, Col. 4, Line 66 - Col. 5, Line 2, and Col. 5, Lines 36-40); and arranging a combustor (26, combustor - Col. 3, Line 30) along the first fluid line (90, 28) such that the second portion of the cooling fluid flowing from the second exit (at elements 86 and 90) is ignited by the combustor (26) and flows through and drives the turbine (24)(see Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 27-33, Col. 4, Line 66 - Col. 5, Line 2, and Col. 5, Lines 36-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the method of Cummings after that of Wilmot, thereby making the valve of Cummings a three way valve with a second exit leading to the turbine of Cummings such that a second portion of the cooling fluid of Cummings is directed toward the turbine of Cummings via the second exit, and including a first fluid line extending from the second exit of the three-way valve to the turbine of Cummings, wherein the combustor of Cummings is arranged along the first fluid line such that the second portion of the cooling fluid flowing from the second exit is ignited by the combustor of Cummings and flows through and drives the turbine of Cummings, all in the way taught by Wilmot, for the advantage of being able to divide the flow into two streams which can then be directed in a controlled fashion to different destinations (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Lines 49-55) and for the advantage of being able to control ultimate temperature of fuel applied to engine (Wilmot; see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 36-40).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. (U.S. 3,080,716) in view of Wilmot, Jr. et al. (U.S. 6,415,595), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lavash (U.S. 3,779,007).
Re claims 5-6:
Cummings/Wilmot teaches the thermal system (Cummings; Figs. 1-2) of claim 4 (as described above).
Cummings/Wilmot fails to disclose/teach the thermal system further comprising a pressure control device arranged fluidly downstream of the second heat exchanger along the first fluid line (claim 5), nor wherein the pressure control device is arranged fluidly upstream of the combustor and fluidly downstream of the three-way valve.
Lavash teaches a thermal system (Fig. 2) comprising a pressure control device (48, pressurizing valve - Col. 4, Line 13) arranged fluidly downstream of a second heat exchanger (54, heat exchanger - Col. 4, Lines 3-4) along a first fluid line (73, conduit - Col. 5, Line 16) wherein the pressure control device (48) is arranged fluidly upstream of a combustor (19, Col. 5, Lines 7-8) and fluidly downstream of a three-way valve (67, bypass valve - Col. 5, Line 32 (a type of three-way valve as shown in Fig. 2)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the thermal system of Cummings/Wilmot after that of Lavash, thereby including a pressure control device in the system of Cummings/Wilmot arranged fluidly downstream of the second heat exchanger of Cummings along the first fluid line of Cummings/Wilmot, wherein the pressure control device is arranged fluidly upstream of the combustor of Cummings and fluidly downstream of the three-way valve of Cummings/Wilmot, all in the way taught by Lavash, for the advantage of being able to maintain fuel pressure above a predetermined minimum value (Lavash; Col. 4, Line 11-14).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. (U.S. 3,080,716), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ensign (U.S. 2010/0031669).
Re claim 7:
Cummings discloses the thermal system (Figs. 1-2) of claim 1 (as described above).
Cummings fails to disclose wherein the turbine is an aspect of an electrical power generator, the electrical power generator configured to convert mechanical energy supplied by the turbine into electrical energy.
Ensign teaches a thermal system (Fig. 1) wherein a turbine (152, free-turbine generator airfoils - Para 17) is an aspect of an electrical power generator (160, free-turbine generator - Para 17), the electrical power generator (160) configured to convert mechanical energy supplied by the turbine (152) into electrical energy (see Fig. 1 and Para 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the thermal system of Cummings after that of Ensign, thereby making the turbine of Cummings be an aspect of an electrical power generator configured to convert mechanical energy supplied by the turbine of Cummings into electrical energy, all as taught by Ensign, for the advantage of being able to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy (Ensign; Para 17).
Cummings/Ensign teaches wherein the heat load (Cummings; Col. 3, Line 68 - “…hot oil from the engine…”) further comprises heat produced during consumption of and/or generation of the electrical energy (in the combination of Cummings/Ensign, the engine of Cummings drives an electrical power generator as taught by Ensign and thereby the “hot oil from the engine” of Cummings would necessarily comprise heat produced during the generation of the electrical energy by the included electrical power generator being driven by the engine of Cummings).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. (U.S. 3,080,716), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Johnson et al. (U.S. 2,925,712).
Re claim 8:
Cummings discloses the thermal system (Figs. 1-2) of claim 1 (as described above), further comprising a processing system (42, 43) configured to increase and decrease a flow rate of the cooling fluid arranged downstream of the second heat exchanger (38) into the first heat exchanger (30) to maintain a desired metric of the cooling fluid (Col. 4, Lines 7-8 - “…a predetermined hot fuel discharge temperature…”)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 75 - Col. 4, Line 16).
Cummings fails to disclose a desired metric of the cooling fluid resident in the fluid storage tank, the desired metric being a temperature, a pressure, or a gas to liquid ratio of the resident cooling fluid.
Johnson teaches a thermal system (Fig. 5) to maintain a desired metric of a cooling fluid (Col. 4, Lines 20-23 - “…a thermocouple, disposed within the fuel tank so as to be responsive to the temperature of the fuel…”) resident in a fluid storage tank (14, fuel tank - Col. 4, Line 15), the desired metric being a temperature, a pressure, or a gas to liquid ratio of the resident cooling fluid (Col. 4, Lines 20-23 - “…a thermocouple, disposed within the fuel tank so as to be responsive to the temperature of the fuel…”)(see Fig. 5 and Col. 4, Lines 9-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the thermal system of Cummings after that of Johnson, thereby making the desired metric of the cooling fluid of Cummings be a desired metric of the cooling fluid resident in the fluid storage tank of Cummings, the desired metric being a temperature of the resident cooling fluid of Cummings, all in the way taught by Johnson, for the advantage of being able to avoid difficulties due to excessive cooling of the fuel (Johnson; Col. 1, Lines 26-30).
Re claim 9:
Cummings/Johnson teaches the thermal system (Cummings; Figs. 1-2) of claim 8 (as described above).
Cummings further discloses wherein the processing system (42, 43) is further configured to increase and decrease a flow rate of the cooling fluid into the first heat exchanger (30) to maintain a desired metric (Col. 4, Lines 7-8 - “…a predetermined hot fuel discharge temperature…”) of the turbine (at 10)(see Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Line 75 - Col. 4, Line 16).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. (U.S. 3,080,716) in view of Johnson et al. (U.S. 2,925,712), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wolf et al. (U.S. 3,690,100).
Cummings/Johnson teaches the thermal system (Cummings; Figs. 1-2) of claim 9 (as described above).
Cummings/Johnson fails to disclose/teach wherein the desired turbine metric is a rotational speed.
Wolf teaches a thermal system (Fig. 1) wherein a desired turbine metric is a rotational speed (Wolf; Col. 2, Lines 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the thermal system of Cummings/Johnson after that of Wolf, thereby making the desired turbine metric of Cummings be a rotational speed as taught by Wolf, for the advantage of preventing overheating and/or overspeeding of the turbine (Wolf; Col. 2, Lines 25-34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11-16 are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “a second portion of the combusted cooling fluid flows through the first heat exchanger to heat upstream cooling fluid resident in the fluid storage tank” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claims 11-16.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by one or more references.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 1/30/26